Discussion Title: Will Covid19 bring lasting environmental changes?

1. Will Covid19 bring lasting environmental changes?
1.1. Con: Oil prices being at an all time low will lead to even more demand once the pandemic is over spiking pollution levels once again. There needs to be a carbon fee or something similar to encourage environmentally conscious behavior.
1.1.1. Con: This might have been the case 10-20 years ago but awareness is at an all-time high. I would assume that awareness of this will spur governments to choose sustainable options that will provide more new jobs.
1.2. Pro: A positive change is definitely in. We need to sustain this by continuing low carbon emissions, simpler lifestyles, eating more greens and minizing digital usage. Connect more with nature. That is the key!
1.3. Pro: Covid-19 has reduced global water pollution.
1.3.1. Pro: Yes, less tourists lead to Clearer waters in [Venice](https://www.wantedinmilan.com/news/in-a-deserted-venice-the-canals-become-crystal-clear.html?fbclid=IwAR1ezD_4PQYbUFx7jypuMA48UOZXFE6MOxx5o8DA__24mG_y2J6nW_iIaxs)
1.3.1.1. Con: again, this is only a short-term effect, as tourists will begin to visit Venice again when the pandemic ends
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: Awareness of the positive environmental changes, that have occurred due to decreased economic activity, might encourage locals and officials to prioritize environmental benefits over tourism-based profit. Leading to the possibility of long term changes through the enactment of more environmentally centered policies.
1.3.1.2. Pro: allow the government to take measures or to maintain the clearness/cleanliness of the water
1.3.1.3. Con: Reduces income from ecotourism that may have been used for conservation efforts
1.3.2. Pro: Venice's canals are known to be famously polluted, however due to COVID-19, there is a decrease in tourists and industrial works, the canals are clearing up. Swans and dolphins are returning to the canals. [euronews.com](https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/16/venice-s-famously-polluted-canals-clear-as-tourists-stay-away-due-to-covid-19)
1.3.2.1. Con: Careful, the swans and dolphins have been proven to be a hoax. [nationalgeographic.com](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-fake-animal-viral-social-media-posts/)
1.4. Pro: Hopefully after this situation becomes better, the society will focus on sustainability. Like several countries implemented lockdown to flatten the curve, even climate change and its effects could be taken into mind as soon as we realise there is a problem.
1.5. Con: Economies are crippled due to the pandemic, as well as bringing negative impacts to social systems
1.6. Con: Although there are evidence to the improvement in the environment during Covid19, there will not be a long lasting effect, because there is no education or awareness increased, and pollution will increase again once Covid19 is over.
1.6.1. Pro: Unless people start to have a permanent change in lifestyle, things would return to the way they were due to either routine or catharsis. Possibly worse since it would be similar to building up pressure and releasing it all at once.
1.6.2. Pro: Schools are responsible for providing education and creating awareness about the environment. Due to the pandemic, schools are shut down. Therefore, it is less likely students will become aware about climate change.
1.6.2.1. Con: Many schools are still in session using online medium and decreasing the environmental footprint of learning for students worldwide. This could include providing environmental education.
1.6.3. Con: This event may educate the public to be more cautious with purchasing animal products in wet markets
1.7. Con: Coronavirus will weaken global investments in clean energy and industry efforts to reduce pollution. [cnbc.com](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html)
1.7.1. Con: Rebuilding will move towards greener technologies. The crash of the oil industry will force OPEC nations to diversify.
1.7.2. Pro: Many countries are trying to abandon their green energy projects to fight the pandemic.
1.7.2.1. Pro: The Czech Republic’s prime minister has [urged the European Union to abandon](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/eu-green-deal-should-now-be-canceled-says-czech-pm) its Green Deal, which seeked to invest €1 trillion to make the EU economy net-zero carbon by 2050, and instead focus on fighting the spread of Coronavirus.
1.7.3. Pro: Countries are investing in fossil fuel infrastructure and bailing out fossil fuel companies amidst the Coronavirus pandemic.
1.7.3.1. Pro: Trump's proposal includes a purchase of [30 million barrels](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-use-coronavirus-to-bail-out-oil-and-gas-companies-2020-03-23) of oil \(an amount that could go up to 77 million barrels\) from oil producers due to falling oil prices.
1.7.4. Pro: Companies that are hurting financially will likely [delay or cancel climate-friendly projects](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/13/coronavirus-could-weaken-climate-change-action-hit-clean-energy.html) that require investment up front.
1.7.5. Con: Companies that hope for bailouts from federal governments will be required to fulfill green requirements.[Attaching green requirements](https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/governments-urged-to-attach-green-strings-to-long-term-coronavirus-recovery-plans/)
1.8. Pro: These positive environmental changes encourage governments to maintain the way it is right now \(clear air, clear water\)
1.8.1. Con: The economic setbacks may cause them to think otherwise. They might increase industrial production to compensate for the decline in productivity over the past months.
1.8.1.1. Pro: Some [economists](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/economic-impact-covid-19/) predict that it will take the US economy 3 years to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is possible corporations will produce and market more to ensure they bounce back quicker.
1.9. Pro: Increased caution in animal consumption will reduce the demand for animal products. This allows the repopulation of wildlife and livestock.
1.9.1. Con: Even after the SARS epidemic, [wet markets](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-hold-china-accountable/#slide-1) continued to operate and thrive in China. This proves that the demand for animal products does not decrease.
1.9.1.1. Con: The Chinese government might take measures and close the markets down, since they have been identified as the source of this virus outbreak.
1.9.1.2. Con: The SARS epidemic was not similar in size with happens now. Furthermore, there might be external pressure \(i.e. other countries\) on the Chinese government to take measures.
1.9.1.3. Con: Since the hygiene and sanitation of the markets was more to blame than the specific animals being consumed, the government would likely make sweeping changes to the hygiene issues in the markets. This has happened before with the example of H5N1 in Hong Kong. All markets were shut down and required to follow strict new rules before being allowed to reopen.
1.9.2. Pro: This will change people's viewpoints on eating such wild livestock, rethinking their choices of eating such products. This will lead to a healthier lifestyle \(vegan, perhaps\) as well as a decrease in demand for meat
1.9.3. Pro: This will also encourage doctors, people in the livestock industry to perform safer and hygienic procedures before serving meat to plates
1.9.4. Con: The [first known](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html) infections of COVID-19 originated in a live animal market in China. Since most grocery stores sell packaged meat instead of live animals, the likelihood of people reducing their meat intake is small.
1.10. Pro: Air quality in Beijing improved greatly because the factories were closed due to fear of spreading the virus.
1.10.1. Pro: Closing of factories will also reduce water pollution by industrial discharge, improving water quality.
1.10.2. Con: As people return to normal activity levels, air quality levels will likely return to their previous state.
1.10.3. Con: but this leads to the economic decline in productivity of the country/city
1.11. Pro: Covid19 and the environmental changes is a chance for human to correct their ways, like a "restart"; it also raises the awareness to how serious the pollutions are and is a wake up call for humans to start being more environmentally cautious
1.11.1. Con: The short time of quarantine will not be sufficient for a "restart", considering the decades of continuous air and marine pollution from industrial emissions and sewage discharge.
1.12. Con: This will only last as long as the factories are closed.
1.13. Pro: Characterised by tough Economical challenges
1.14. Con: When consumption levels resume, so will the negative impacts to the environment.
1.14.1. Pro: Emission levels in China are [increasing](https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/covid-19-coronavirus-emissions-pollution/) again.
1.15. Con: As the economy is taking a big hit at the moment, governments will go to great lengths to restore it after this crisis. Boosting economy rapidly and strongly rarely happens in a sustainable way.
1.15.1. Con: COVID-19 has brought sufficient awareness to environment, that the government may be more likely to consider a sustainable way
1.15.2. Pro: Following the 2008 financial crisis, annual CO2 emissions were higher than expected in absence of the crisis largely due to investment in infrastructure
1.15.3. Pro: Investing in non-sustainble endeavours such as infrastructure gives the best return \(greatest multiplier effect\) on investment into the economy.
1.15.4. Con: Many economies who have the capital to boost their economy and have potential for significant impact on environment, have already invested heavily in developments that are unsustainable and they may not require more of such investments \(such as roads\)
1.15.5. Pro: Indeed, different governments are thinking about giving huge amount of money to restore polluting companies without any conditions. GreenPeace has started a campaign \(In French : [greenpeace.fr](https://www.greenpeace.fr/20-milliards-pour-sauver-les-grandes-entreprises-polluantes/) \) to raise awareness and fight this.
1.16. Pro: With businesses softening up to the idea of remote work, there will be less pollution from travel even after lockdowns.
1.16.1. Con: Animals have a large contribution to environmental effects. with more people at home it is likely there will be more pets to keep those people company in an environment where pets are allowed